|
APPENDIX 4
Fayed's attempts to intimidate Members
of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, witnesses and
a Specialist Adviser 1990
Shortly after The Guardian
article was published in October 1994 I was contacted by Dr (now
Professor) Barry Rider, Dean of Jesus College, Cambridge and
now also Director of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies.
In 1990, when the Select Committee on Trade
and Industry was undertaking a inquiry on Company Investigations
he had acted as one of its Special Advisers. One of the case studies
selected was House of Fraser.
Dr Rider provided me with the details of a concerted
campaign by Fayed against Sir Kenneth Warren MP (then Chairman),
some members of the Committee, and others, including Michael Howard
MP, journalists and the Special Advisers.
The campaign involved a variety of defamatory
allegations against individuals - including false (and even absurd)
allegations of bribery and corruption.
The explanation came to light when a Miss Francesca
Pollard gave a statement outlining how Fayed sought to undermine
and discredit the Committee.
Pollard was the grand-daughter of Walter Nathan
Williams, the founder of the Israel-British Bank. She was a principal
beneficiary under his will and believed that she had been kept
out of her inheritance by the fraud of a Mr Harry Landy and a
Mr Bension, two of the trustees of the will. In 1979 Landy was
convicted of a fraud involving the Bank but freed on appeal.
Pollard believed that Tiny Rowland and others
were implicated in a conspiracy with Landy. She began a public
campaign to expose what she thought was their wrongdoing. As a
result of the publicity she generated Fayed became aware of her
grudge against Rowland and sought to exploit it.
Fayed arranged for Pollard to be approached
with an offer of help from him in her campaign to secure justice.
This help was given via a system of cash payments amounting to
about £25,000 per annum, supplemented by other material
benefits including a motor vehicle and driver/minder. Fayed persuaded
Pollard that Rowland was the ultimate source of all her problems
and that she should direct her fire principally against him.
In late 1986 Fayed persuaded Pollard to transfer
the conduct of her legal proceedings (for the recovery of her
inheritance) from Redferns, her solicitors hitherto, to Palmer
Cowan, who acted for Fayed and HOF generally. Thenceforth Fayed
paid all her solicitors' bills, amounting to tens of thousands
of pounds.
As a result of these inducements Pollard
altered the emphasis of her material away from Landy and Bension
towards Rowland and Sir Edward du Cann. From about 1988 she allowed
Fayed's paid employees and associates to draft, prepare and distribute
material under her name. Throughout this campaign she was told
to conceal Fayed's role in funding and organising her public
campaign.
Pollard became increasingly unhappy with some
of the tasteless aspects of the campaign, which extended to MPs,
including particularly members of the Select Committee on Trade
and Industry, its witnesses and Special Advisers.
She refused to do all that was urged upon her
- as a result of which Fayed ceased his financial support for
her. Disillusioned with Fayed, she then revealed the details
of his involvement in her activities.
In December 1990 she attended a meeting with
Fayed at 60 Park Lane. Fayed asked her to help him discredit
members of the Committee who had criticised him and were "pro-Rowland"
- in particular Sir Kenneth Warren, Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Doug
Hoyle and Stan Crowther. It was this episode which led to her
estrangement from Fayed.
Scurrilous letters were drafted by Fayed associates
and sent to Warren in Pollard's name. They were generally abusive
but some contained fabricated allegations.
A letter of 20 June 1990 was drafted by Richard
New, (a private investigator employed by Fayed) and given to
Pollard to sign. In it she complained that evidence she had submitted
to the Select Committee had not been printed and reproduced with
the Report.
The letter went on to say:
"Your appointment of Barry Rider to the
key position of legal advisor to your committee was simply staggering
. . . You must have been aware that on the 18 September last year
he had been effectively sacked - for alleged fraud, fiddling
expenses and threatening staff - from his position as head of
the crime unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat (Eyes 11 and 25
May) and that it is also alleged that parts of his c.v. are fictitious.
You must also have known that it was in his position at the Secretariat
that he had come to know Rowland so well."
"As you can see from your report, it was
solely on Rider's say so that you scurrilously dreamt up various
`hypothetical' charges against those running House of Fraser -
lying totally in the face of all the investigating bodies, and
furthering Rowland's vendetta. Not only did you accept Rider's
tarnished evidence, another key witness to your committee was
Saul Froomkin, Attorney General of Bermuda. Surely you knew that
Rider and Froomkin were in cahoots in an offshore `security' company
that they had set up in order to improperly `channel off' business
that came their way in their official positions (Eyes 11 and
25 May)."
The letter went on to make abusive and
defamatory allegations in respect of Tiny Rowland, Kenneth Warren
and Henry Brooke. It concluded with:
"PS I am sure that the strong rumour that
Rowland had DTI inspector Henry Brooke `eating out of his hand'
is untrue, as is the grapevine news that Rowland's dirty tricks
department had happy snaps of the comings and goings of poor
Henry in relation to a certain `club' - of the nature usually
referred to by the tabloids as `rough trade'."
Fayed
knew and approved of the tactic of drafting and sending the letter.
According to Pollard Fayed told her that he was responsible for
leaking through Richard New to Private Eye documents which formed
the basis of the articles referred to in the text of the letter.
A substantial amount of material was submitted
to the Select Committee in June 1991 detailing various activities
carried out by Pollard under Fayed's direction and at his expense.
For the purposes of this submission, it is unnecessary to go
into further detail of individual cases as Dr Rider's experience
should offer ample proof that Fayed is capable of disseminating
any untruth, however gross, if he thinks that it will cause hurt
to his perceived enemies.
There could be no conceivable reason for Pollard
to be aware of Rider. Nor could she have been in a position to
attack him in the above terms without the suggestion and aid of
Fayed and his surrogates. The malicious and completely unfounded
allegations made against Dr Rider can have emanated only from
Fayed.
The full history of the matter discloses a wealth
of corroborative material to establish beyond doubt that Fayed
controlled and directed her black propaganda activities: (1)
At first Rowland was referred to in her published material only
peripherally and then only to the extent of his alleged involvement
in her own affairs. Later her campaign concentrated its attacks
almost exclusively on Rowland.
(2) The content of her attacks on Rowland shows
elaborate and expensive resources and draftmanship whilst the
facts stated are either wholly false or misrepresented.
(3) The literary style of the published material
changed, becoming less haphazard and more professional.
(4) The choice of ancillary targets in the later
letters had no relevance to her affairs but a clear relevance
to those of the Fayeds (for example the relevant MPs and others
connected with the Select Committee).
(5) When Pollard turned against the Fayeds
she provided a statement for Rowland which contained a knowledge
of information which the Fayeds would have the resources to obtain
but she would not e.g. ex-directory telephone numbers and copies
of the opinions of David Tudor-Price QC (who advised that the
1976 DTI Inspectors' report on Lonrho disclosed prima facie
evidence of the commission of several criminal offences by Lonrho
directors). (6) The Fayeds are named as recipients of her
earlier letters but not the later ones.
(7) Documents confirm the payment of her legal
fees by House of Fraser.
(8) Pims London Ltd admitted that two letters
respectively dated 3 June 1988 and 6 June 1988 to Hugh Aldous
FCA and sent out in her name, were printed to the order of Broad
Street Associates. BSA acted at the time for HOF and, as an expensive
PR company, their services would have been wholly beyond her means.
These two letters were in the same typeface as all the later
documents, whereas the earlier ones were in a variety of typefaces.
In June 1991 Pollard publicly apologised to
Tiny Rowland for her part in Fayed's campaign against him. A
copy of that letter is included in this Appendix.
The full documentation relating to Pollard's
statement about her experience of Fayed's activities and character
further corroborate: (1) the DTI Report's conclusions and
(2) Fayed's capacity for dishonesty and vindictiveness as
demonstrated in the Bettermann case.
His allegations against me are all of a piece
with these.
It would be otiose to dwell further on the abundant
similar fact evidence. Given this background, I submit that Fayed
has to jump a very high hurdle to satisfy you on a balance of
probabilities that his allegations against me are true. I further
submit that it is impossible for him to satisfy a standard of
proof "beyond reasonable doubt".
LONRHO PLC
R W "TINY" ROWLAND
AN APOLOGY
I am conscious of the wrong
I have done to R W "Tiny" Rowland by the long and vicious
campaign against him under my name.
In the mistaken belief that by embarrassing
and libelling Mr Rowland I would put pressure on my uncle (who
worked for a Lonrho subsidiary and whom I thought was responsible
for depriving me of monies left by my grandfather) I first campaigned
against Mr Rowland and others, but was almost immediately approached
by Mr Mohamed Fayed and have been working closely with and paid
by him, secretly, since 1986.
For the past four and half years all the considerable
expenses of my campaign were handed to me at the home of Mohamed
Fayed at 60 Park Lane, London, and I was given a van for displaying
posters and carrying pamphlets, with a driver/bodyguard supplied
by Mr Fayed.
In return, I signed and distributed libellous
letters to members of both Houses of Parliament, the legal profession
including judges, and thousands of other influential people in
England and abroad. I was directed to visit the neighbourhoods
where Mr Rowland and his fellow directors lived, and the constituencies
of any Members of Parliament asking questions about House of
Fraser, which Mr Fayed resented. I was instructed by Mr Fayed
to make humiliating scenes for such Members of Parliament at constituency
events, or when they attended church, and was provided with details
of their movements for the purpose. I carried out some of these
instructions, but not all that was proposed.
The attacks on Mr Rowland's business and personal
life were the work of Mr Fayed and his employees and close associates.
I did not write them. I only gave information about my family
dispute.
Throughout the four and a half years, Mohamed
Fayed telephoned me almost every day to instruct me to do more
and more to help him destroy the reputation of Mr Rowland and
the other people he wanted attacked. Some of the circulars carried
my signature, others were sent without my seeing them, but still
with my facsimile signature. I would like to state that I had
no part at all in preparing the circular which said my children
had been followed, threatened and frightened by men employed
by Mr Rowland and his Company, Lonrho. It was a lie.
When I asked why my signature had been used
with out my knowledge, on that and other circulars, I was told
they could not wait for me to sign in order to meet their deadlines.
In this way I became more and more entangled
in what I now think of as a wicked campaign. I think I was blinded
by my strong feelings that I had suffered an injustice in not
receiving my inheritance.
I believed that my Solicitor was not acting
in my interest but was colluding with Mr Fayed in delaying any
settlement of my case, so that I would continue to be a useful
tool, dependent on the money which Fayed paid me to do what I
did against Mr Rowland. Mohamed Fayed also paid my solicitors,
and all the costs of my campaign.
I realised that Mohamed Fayed had preyed on
my distress to cover the lies he wanted to concoct and spread.
From my almost daily contact with Mr Fayed I can say that he
is obsessed with spreading vicious lies, provided they are not
traced back to him.
I cannot say how sorry I am. When I finally
realised how far down this path I had gone, I went to my brother
Ben, (who had no part in any of my wrong-doing) to ask whether
Mr Rowland would see me. Mr Rowland had never met or spoken to
me before, and nor had anyone on his behalf.
I want to emphasise that I went of my own accord
to clear my conscience. I hope my apology will help Mr Rowland
to obtain an injunction against publication of the book which
was shown to me in manuscript a short time ago, and which Mohamed
Fayed had had prepared by Richard New, Royston Webb and Michael
Cole. He also told me that the book was to be edited by Tom Bower.
Mohamed Fayed had told me to pretend to be the authoress, and
to sit in a front window of Harrods to sign copies at a give-away
price. I did not agree to it, as what I had read was disgusting.
I knew nothing dishonourable about Mr Rowland
at the beginning of my campaign, and I have learnt nothing dishonourable
about him since.
It is my intention to give a full written account
of my involvement in this matter and to confirm it by Affidavit,
in addition to this apology.
Signed:
Francesca Pollard
In the presence of:
Benjamin Pollard
25 June 1991
| 
